Global Index 2018
The Global Access to Nutrition Index 2018 is the third Global Index published by the Access To Nutrition Initiative (ATNI). The first was published in 2013 and the second in 2016.
The Global Access to Nutrition Index focusses on the role that food and beverage manufacturers play in making healthy food affordable and accessible to all consumers globally. In the Global Index 2018, the 22 largest food and beverage manufacturers in the world are ranked on their nutrition-related policies, practices and performance. The companies assessed operate in over 200 countries and generate approximately $500 billion in sales. They therefore have a huge influence on the diets of consumers and ATNI believes that these companies have an important role to play in addressing the world’s nutrition challenges.
This Global Index 2018, for the first time, includes a Product Profile which assesses the nutritional quality of the Index constituents’ products. This Index again features a sub-ranking of the compliance of the world’s six largest manufacturers of breast-milk substitutes (BMS) with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent World Health Assembly resolutions.
Companies
Based on total global sales in 2016, the 22 largest global food and beverage manufacturers were selected for inclusion in the 2018 Global ATNI.
Findings
The 2018 Index shows the world’s biggest F&B companies have stepped up their efforts to encourage better diets, mostly through new and updated nutrition strategies and policies, improved commitments on affordability and accessibility, better performance on nutrition labeling and health and nutrition claims, and more disclosure of information across categories. Nevertheless, ATNF has serious concerns about the healthiness of the world’s largest global F&B manufacturers’ product portfolios.
Best practices
Example of best practice: The operating principles embodied in Nestlé’s ‘Creating Shared Value’ strategy include a comprehensive set of nutrition policies covering all areas that the ATNI methodology assesses. The company has defined 15 measurable 2020 nutrition-related commitments against which it reports progress. Nestlé links all of these commitments to the relevant SDGs.
Recommendations
The 2018 Index report calls on companies to, first and foremost, work to improve the nutritional quality of their existing products, particularly established, high-sales volume products. Read the full set of comprehensive recommendations.
Future Opportunities
ATNI sees many opportunities to develop its work and amplify its impact. For the next Global Index, we intend to streamline the methodology to reduce the time required from companies to provide input to the research process. We will also look to utilize more independently generated research and/or verify data submitted by companies, similar to the approach used for the Product Profile.
Corporate Profile
The Corporate Profile assesses companies’ nutrition and undernutrition-related commitments and policies, practices and disclosure in seven categories.
The Corporate Profile assesses companies’ nutrition and undernutrition-related commitments and policies, practices and disclosure in seven categories.
Governance
The average Category A nutrition score increased to 4.7 from 3.9 in 2016 (as shown in Figure 2), and Nestlé currently leads the score with 9.8 points. FrieslandCampina showed the largest improvement by increasing its score by almost 4 points, mainly due to its new more comprehensive nutrition strategy and strengthened nutrition governance and management system. Category A remains the highest-scoring category on the Index. Many companies have strengthened their nutrition policies and management systems.
FullReport
Products
The average score increased to 3.4 from 2.8 in 2016 (as shown in Figure 2), and Nestlé currently leads the ranking with a score of 8.0 points. Campbell’s showed the largest improvement by increasing its score by three points, mainly related to more reporting on nutritional criteria, which are therefore now recognized as a precursor to a NPS in Criterion B2.
FullReport
Accessibility
The average Category C nutrition score increased to 2.4 from 0.9 in 2016, and Grupo Bimbo currently leads with 7.0 points. PepsiCo showed the largest improvement by increasing its score by more than 5 points. Since 2016, on average, Category C performance has considerably improved. While scores are still very low (2.4 out of 10), they have more than doubled between 2016 and 2018.
FullReport
Marketing
The average Category D nutrition score increased to 3.9 from 3.8 in 2016, and Mars currently leads the ranking with a score of 9.5 points. FrieslandCampina showed the largest improvement by increasing its score by almost five points, primarily related to its updated global responsible marketing guidelines, which were updated in 2017. Since 2016, companies strengthened their responsible marketing commitments – seven companies updated their marketing commitments to all consumers, and ten companies updated their marketing commitments to children.
FullReport
Lifestyles
The average score increased to 3.4 from 2.5 in 2016, and Nestlé currently leads the ranking with a score of 8.0 points. PepsiCo showed the largest improvement by increasing its score by more than three points, which is mostly related to clearer articulation of expected health and business outcomes in relation to the nutrition, diet and activity elements of its health and wellness program. Since the previous Index, companies’ support for healthy diets and active lifestyles overall has increased.
FullReport
Labeling
The average score increased to 4.0 from 2.5 in 2016 (as shown in Figure 2), and Mondelez leads the ranking with 9.2 points. Mars showed the most improvement by increasing its score by more than five points, which is mostly related to the complete roll-out of its labeling commitments and disclosure of this information, as well as its tracking of health and nutrition claims, which was not reported in 2016. Overall, companies have made considerable progress on nutrition labeling since 2016.
FullReport
Engagement
The average score decreased to 3.9 from 4.0 in 2016. Nestlé and PepsiCo lead the ranking, both with a score of 7.9 points. PepsiCo also showed the largest improvement in score, increasing more than three points, mainly due to disclosing more information regarding structured stakeholder engagement (related to criteria G2). Performance related to stakeholder engagement (in Criterion G2) has improved, with the majority of companies providing relevant evidence of using stakeholder input to inform their nutrition policies and programs.
FullReport
Governance
The average score increased substantially from 2.5 to four points. However, there is clearly still room to do much more. Unilever leads the rankings in Category A with the most comprehensive approach to address undernutrition, followed by Nestlé, FrieslandCampina, Kellogg and Danone.
FullReport
Products
Progress has been made compared to 2016 as more companies make commitments to develop fortified or other appropriate products to address undernutrition. However, the quality of these commitments falls well below the expectations they raise through their commitments to address undernutrition. The average score increased from 2.5 to 3.1 points. Danone leads the ranking in Category B – Undernutrition as it makes a number of relevant commitments, demonstrates it is developing or already offers a range of products fighting undernutrition and discloses many of its commitments publicly. It is followed by Unilever, FrieslandCampina, PepsiCo, Mondelez and Nestlé.
FullReport
Accessibility
More companies make commitments and provide examples of improving the affordability and accessibility of products formulated to address undernutrition in underserved populations, increasing the score from 2.2 to 3.5 points. Unilever leads the ranking in Category C because it has the most complete set of commitments, provides good evidence of performance and public disclosure thereof. It is followed by FrieslandCampina, Grupo Bimbo and Nestlé.
FullReport
Marketing
More companies report a relevant commitment and provide more evidence than they did in 2016. Category D indicators related to undernutrition were not scored in 2016, therefore a comparison in score is not possible. Although the average score is low with 1.8 points, FrieslandCampina leads the ranking in Category D Undernutrition with an almost full score, followed by Kellogg, Nestlé and Mars.
FullReport
Lifestyles
Compared to 2016, more companies make a commitment to educate undernourished consumers in developing countries about healthy foods (that address micronutrient deficiencies) by supporting relevant programs, while the public disclosure of information regarding these programs has remained fairly stable. Overall, only eight companies report supporting relevant undernutrition education programs in developing countries, which is the lowest across the seven categories in the assessment related to undernutrition. The average score increased from 1.5 to 2.5 points. Mondelez leads the ranking with a clearly defined and publicly disclosed approach to fund and support independently designed and evaluated programs, followed by Nestlé, Kellogg, PepsiCo and Ajinomoto.
FullReport
Labeling
More companies make and disclose relevant commitments, increasing the average score from 1.6 to 3.8 points. Grupo Bimbo, Mars and Nestlé achieved a full score. They were followed in the ranking by Danone, FrieslandCampina, Mondelez and Unilever.
FullReport
Engagement
The average score in Category G, related to undernutrition, remained fairly stable increasing from 1.7 to 2.3 points Unilever leads the ranking for this category, followed by Ajinomoto, Kellogg, FrieslandCampina and Danone.
FullReport
Product Profile
The purpose of this Product Profile is to begin to build a picture of the role that products of companies in the Global Index play in consumers’ diets. It is designed to assess how healthy companies’ products are. In other words, to establish the nutritional quality of the products they sell, which is determined by the levels of fat, salt, sugar, fruit, vegetables and other ingredients.
Breast-milk Substitutes
(BMS) Marketing
The world’s six largest baby food companies continue to market breast-milk substitutes using marketing practices that fall considerably below the standards of The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes (The Code). Companies have a role to play in contributing to optimal infant and young child nutrition (ICYN). Breastfeeding is a crucial element of IYCN. Increasing breastfeeding to near universal levels could prevent over 820,000 deaths of children under five each year and provides lifetime protection against a range of illnesses. Inappropriate marketing of BMS can undermine optimal IYCN.
Trends over Time
Visualize progress at a glance with ATNI trend-tracking tool.
Amplifying Impact
Companies urgently need to deliver on the Sustainable Development goals
End hunger, achieve
food security and
improved nutrition
Ensure healthy
lives and promote
well-being for all
The Global Index 2018 was produced by the Access to Nutrition Foundation (ATNF) team, consisting of Inge Kauer, Marije Boomsma, Paul Vos, Simona Kramer, Ellen Poolman, Fiona Kirk, Magdalis Mercillia and Rachel Crossley. The ATNF team drew on the expertise and advice of the ATNI Expert Group. Their close engagement throughout the ATNI development process has been a source of invaluable guidance, and this report benefited greatly from their input. The views expressed in this report, however, do not necessarily reflect the views of the group’s members or of their institutions.
